Questions of his past surprised UCLA's Alford

May 2, 2013

Updated Aug. 21, 2013 1:17 p.m.

1 of 1

UCLA basketball coach Steve Alford said he was surprised when, at the news conference introducing him as the new coach, he was asked about a past controversy when he was coach at Iowa. ARMANDO BROWN, FOR THE REGISTER

UCLA basketball coach Steve Alford said he was surprised when, at the news conference introducing him as the new coach, he was asked about a past controversy when he was coach at Iowa. ARMANDO BROWN, FOR THE REGISTER

LOS ANGELES – Steve Alford's first month as UCLA's basketball coach was a tumultuous one, to say the least, as the rehashing of a 2002 incident of sexual assault at Iowa involving one of his players – as well as the comments that followed – caused many in Westwood to question whether Alford was worthy of holding UCLA basketball's storied head coaching job.

The case had ignited angry Iowa fans at the time, mostly because of Alford's unquestioned backing of Pierre Pierce, the Hawkeyes leading scorer at the time, who had been accused of sexual assault. Alford refused to kick Pierce off the team until a second, similar incident forced his hand in 2005. Pierce served 11 months in prison after pleading guilty to two charges of first-degree burglary, assault with intent to commit sexual assault, and fourth-degree criminal mischief.

Eleven years and two jobs later, Alford said on Thursday in an interview with the Orange County Register that he thought he never expected the one-time controversy to make national headlines over a decade later.

"I had no idea (it would come up)," Alford said. "That was 11, 12 years ago. After that situation, I still coached at Iowa another three, four years, then it was six (seasons) at New Mexico, and now all of a sudden, it surfaces again. It caught me obviously by surprise when it hadn't been brought up in 11 years."

But the second question of Alford's hiring press conference in March directly questioned the new UCLA coach's decisions during the case, including a profession of Pierce's innocence at Big Ten Media Day that season. The question, Alford said, took him by surprise.

"Well, that was an instance that happened years ago at the University of Iowa," Alford said at the time, "and all I can tell you with that situation is I followed everything that the University of Iowa – the administration, the lawyers that were hired – I did everything that I was supposed to do at the University of Iowa in that situation. I followed everything that I was told to do."

And his answer sparked even further scrutiny in the Los Angeles and national media.

"It's hard to recall exact timelines and things that took place," Alford said on Thursday when asked about the press conference question. "I can just remember – and I think it was the second or third question at the press conference – I tried to recall quickly what had happened. I just know and remember it was something I immediately went to my athletic director about because I didn't know how to handle things. Through that, (I) was told, 'Support your player through this process, make sure you're always saying let the lawyers, let the law take care of itself.' I did that, and at the Big Ten media day, I'd made the mistake as the comment that I made could easily be viewed as insensitive, and that was never my intent at all to do that. That's why I was apologetic. That comment seemed insensitive, and I didn't want that at all."

Alford issued a full apology two weeks after accepting the job, just as the Pierce case continued to re-spark waves of scrutiny that Alford thought had long past. It had never been an issue during his tenure as coach at New Mexico, so he hadn't planned on answering to his past decisions – many of which he has since admitted were regrettable.

User Agreement

Keep it civil and stay on topic. No profanity, vulgarity, racial
slurs or personal attacks. People who harass others or joke about
tragedies will be blocked. By posting your comment, you agree to
allow Orange County Register Communications, Inc. the right to
republish your name and comment in additional Register publications
without any notification or payment.